A blog about living polygamy

Main menu

Post navigation

Lies about Polygamy Part IV: Answer to Hakeem Muhammad

If you studied history, any anthropologist would tell you that the occurrence of polyandry was extremely rare whereas polygny was widespread. All of this suggests that women can be fulfilled that by one man. Additionally, even if you can prove that women are just as prone as men to be promiscuous by genetics- you cannot extrapolate ethical principles from desires or inclination.

All this suggests is that men by brute force and religious invention have been able to imprison and sexually dominate women. When religious oppression is lifted and law prevents men from using violence against women, women choose to have as many sexual partners as men.

There are inclinations or desires that may have genetic basis that are not beneficial to society.

Yes. That is why western cultures forbid e.g. forced polygyny, child marriages and rape within marriage. Islam e.g. does none of those things.

Polyandry is not beneficial at all to a human society. Paternity issues, is one of those. Additionally, you did not answer that reliance on paternity tests privilege first would technology that the majority of the world has no access to.

Additionally, you stated they are “almost foolproof”. Every man deserves to who is children are with 100% accuracy with no room for error.

There are more fertile men in the world than women. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. Two men can provide better for one woman than vice versa. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. One woman can satisfy any chosen amount of men sexually every day. No man can do that. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. Unmarried men have a tendency to violence and anti-social behaviour. Women do not. Marriage is thus of greater importance to men than to women. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. Over population is a huge problem today. This would be solved if we were to only allow polyandry. If we did, the population would remain stable in numbers. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. Et.c. And listen carefully now: If women were allowed to marry more than one man more men than today would know correctly what children are really theirs!! 😉

Moreover, not knowing the father in relationships which is what unlimited polyandry allows can lead to incestous relationships among offspring.

This is why Islam sets limits. I do realize you said that you do not believe everyone should take multiple spouses.

Please read my last statement!

But one way to gauge, how effective, moral, or practical something is–is by examining if an entire society did something would their be a negative or positive result.

Exactly!

In the case of polyandry and polygny both being legalized and everyone partaking in it- and of course not wanting to discriminate against gays or bisexuals- men would also be allowed to marry multiple men and women and women would also be allowed to marry multiple women and men.

If everyone did this in a society, there would be chaos, stds spread, and by extension the entire society would basically be married together by extension.

To support this claim, without being discriminating, you would have to stick with monogamy!

In the case of regulated polygny, with men only being allowed to marry up to 4 women dependent on socioeconomic responsibility- nd treating each wife justly– if every man did that it would benefit society by getting rid of the illegitimate child probem, the mistreatment of mistresses and a whole host of social problems.

Ok, I repeat: There are more fertile men in the world than women. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. Two men can provide better for one woman than vice versa. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. One woman can satisfy any chosen amount of men sexually every day. No man can do that. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. Unmarried men have a tendency to violence and anti-social behaviour. Women do not. Marriage is thus of greater importance to men than to women. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. Over population is a huge problem today. This would be solved if we were to only allow polyandry. If we did, the population would remain stable in numbers. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. Et.c. And listen carefully now: If women were allowed to marry more than one man more men than today would know correctly what children are really theirs!! 😉

Moreover, there are physical differences between men and women.

Women are able to give birth to children and men cannot.. Is this apartheid?

This is another argument why more than one man should support every woman.

God created women with the ability to breastfed. Men do not have such an ability. Is this apartheid?

Men can breastfeed too, did you know? There’s also nestlé. And again – this is also an argument why more than one man should support every woman.

God has endowed men with more testosterone than women. Is this apartheid?

Has this anything to do with polygyny? It escapes me… But, it’s true that men are more violent, and thus should be held under tighter restrictions than women.

According to your logic, God should have just created one sex. But there isn’t one sex and what would be the benefit in that?. Instead, God created us in pairs my dear sister to complement one another and give each other tranquility.

He created white people and black people too. Why is that do you think?? Don’t you realize this argument is disgusting?

Polyandry, has no benefit on a society but regulated polygny does. Although, I stated legally I support polyandry and polygny but I recognize the secular nature of the government

I have already proven that polyandry is more beneficial to society.

Also, should because men can multiple wives why do you take that to also mean women should be able to marry multiple men? Who said men are the role models for women?

“All this suggests is that men by brute force and religious invention have been able to imprison and sexually dominate women. When religious oppression is lifted and law prevents men from using violence against women, women choose to have as many sexual partners as men.”

In the rise of Islam, this is not accurate. It was the areligious Arabian society which permitted unregulated polygamy with men having up to 100 wives. Women often had no say so in marriage often times being forced into marriage with the son of a deceased husband which he had through another marriage. IF the son did not want her she was forced out into the wilderness after a barbaric practice in which camel excrement was splattered on her. Islam got rid of such barbaric practices and protected women. Additionally, you need to explain why several human societies independent of each other all permitted polygyny and not polyandry.

Was it because they all were patriarchal oppressive societies or because polyandry is of not benefit? Historically, polyandry was not permitted precisely because a woman with multiple husbands has no idea who the biological father of her child is. This in turn can lead to incest which in turn can cause diseases and genetic disorders and the collapses of the society. Additionally, men going around fornicated with as many women as they desired lead to child neglect if they were no longer around. This is one of the reasons why the institution of marriage was created.

“There are more fertile men in the world than women. Hence polyandry is more beneficial.”

My sister, this is a misunderstanding. In order to establish a basic civilization, polygny is more beneficial than polyandry. A society must build up its population numbers. Exclusive Polyandry, would involve a woman being pregnant for nine month time with let’s say four husband. In that time period, the four husbands would not be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse with any other women in an exclusively polyandry society. This means their population rate would be low. However, in a society with polygny-while one wife is pregnant- he would be engaging in sexual intercourse with another wife- and getting her pregnant. This builds up population numbers and is the reason historically while civilizations permitted polygny and why the occurrence of polyandry was rare.

“iTwo men can provide better for one woman than vice versa. Hence polyandry is more beneficial.”

This doesn’t take into account the Islamic ethics concerning polygny. ONe must be in adequate position to provide for his wives if he wants another wife. This is true but isn’t according to your liberal worldview a man providing for a woman “patriarchal”? Additionally, taking care of a woman financially doesn’t mandate or require marriage.

“One woman can satisfy any chosen amount of men sexually every day.”

Promiscuous women are more likely to acquire cervical cancer and accquire STDS. A recent study among Muslims in Africa found the occurrence of HIV/AIDS rare among Muslim populations when compared with non-Muslim populations. Face it, the ISlamic ethics governing sex work.

“l. Over population is a huge problem today. This would be solved if we were to only allow polyandry. If we did, the population would remain stable in numbers. Hence polyandry is more beneficial. Et.c. ”

“All this suggests is that men by brute force and religious invention have been able to imprison and sexually dominate women. When religious oppression is lifted and law prevents men from using violence against women, women choose to have as many sexual partners as men.”In the rise of Islam, this is not accurate. It was the areligious Arabian society which permitted unregulated polygamy with men having up to 100 wives. Women often had no say so in marriage often times being forced into marriage with the son of a deceased husband which he had through another marriage. IF the son did not want her she was forced out into the wilderness after a barbaric practice in which camel excrement was splattered on her. Islam got rid of such barbaric practices and protected women. Additionally, you need to explain why several human societies independent of each other all permitted polygyny and not polyandry.The society you are talking about was not areligious. It was highly religious. Most historical religions have been patriarchal, simply because men have been physically stronger and they have used this strength to subjugate and sexually dominate women, to their own benefit. Religion has been a way to excuse and justify this. This also explains why several societies have allowed polygyny, not polyandry. Men have wanted to dominate women, have sex with women, and still know who was their own prodigy. Hence the need to invent religions with strong rules about female chastity and male right to sex and the right to rule over women. It is the right of the physically stronger that has prevailed, not what is best for society. When society has come into the equation, polygyny has been banished since it is detrimental to individuals and societies.Was it because they all were patriarchal oppressive societies or because polyandry is of not benefit? Historically, polyandry was not permitted precisely because a woman with multiple husbands has no idea who the biological father of her child is. This in turn can lead to incest which in turn can cause diseases and genetic disorders and the collapses of the society. Additionally, men going around fornicated with as many women as they desired lead to child neglect if they were no longer around. This is one of the reasons why the institution of marriage was created.A man with many wives will still be an absent father. Sometimes 75% of the time. So polygyny forces children to grow up with absent dead beat dads. Polandry allows children to have a full time mom and several dads, which of course is highly beneficial.
“There are more fertile men in the world than women. Hence polyandry is more beneficial.”My sister, this is a misunderstanding. In order to establish a basic civilization, polygny is more beneficial than polyandry. A society must build up its population numbers. Exclusive Polyandry, would involve a woman being pregnant for nine month time with let’s say four husband. In that time period, the four husbands would not be allowed to engage in sexual intercourse with any other women in an exclusively polyandry society. This means their population rate would be low. However, in a society with polygny-while one wife is pregnant- he would be engaging in sexual intercourse with another wife- and getting her pregnant. This builds up population numbers and is the reason historically while civilizations permitted polygny and why the occurrence of polyandry was rare.This is a blatant falsehood. Population growth in poor countries is together with the threat to the environment the greatest dangers to mankind. So polyandry is highly beneficial. And a woman can have sex right up to the day when she gives birth, so all the husbands can be satisfied. For a few weeks after giving birth the woman can’t have sex, so the men will have to do without. This however is NOTHING compared with polygyny where a woman has to go without sex at least half her life, sometimes 75 % of her life!
“iTwo men can provide better for one woman than vice versa. Hence polyandry is more beneficial.”This doesn’t take into account the Islamic ethics concerning polygny. ONe must be in adequate position to provide for his wives if he wants another wife. This is true but isn’t according to your liberal worldview a man providing for a woman “patriarchal”? Additionally, taking care of a woman financially doesn’t mandate or require marriage.In society today, sadly, men earn an avarage higher income than women. Thus two men would provide better for a family than a single man. You say that a man must be able to support two families in order to become polygamous. Many muslim men don’t care about this. They also make their wives pay out of their earnings. However, obviously two men with good salaries could afford better schools, better homes et.c. for the children of the family than a single father could provide for two families. So polyandry would enable families to live better, eat better, afford college and better schools for the children. Thus polyandry is an Eton-Oxbridge way of life, while polygyny is Brmingham comprehensive and work at Tesco. (Irony, sorry)
“One woman can satisfy any chosen amount of men sexually every day.”Promiscuous women are more likely to acquire cervical cancer and accquire STDS. A recent study among Muslims in Africa found the occurrence of HIV/AIDS rare among Muslim populations when compared with non-Muslim populations. Face it, the ISlamic ethics governing sex work.Nope. This is not true. Ethics also should apply equally to everybody. Husbands should naturally be as chaste as wives. A woman who has marital sex only with her chaste husbands is in no danger of getting STD:s. We are talking polyandrous women here – not promiscuous ones! Cervical cancer is also no issue with several chaste husbands and modern vaccine. So there is no increase in danger with polyandry if men are as ethical as women. So face it, sex works as long as everobody involved is as responsible and as ethical as the others!
” If women were allowed to marry more than one man more men than today would know correctly what children are really theirs!! ”Incorrect, beloved. IF women guarded their chasity following Islamic principles and only engaged in sexual intercourse with one man- that woman knows 100% who her baby’s father is.I am saying dear, that with men being away 50-75 % of the time being polygamous, I can asure you that there are o lot of husbands out there who believe themselves to be fathers of other men’s children!! =) If women were allowed polyandry, they wouldn’t have to lie and cheat but could let their kids know who their real fathers are! If men only had sex with one woman, they could also be real fathers instead of AWOL:s.Do you honestly expect, four men to go get a paternity test to see who their child is? That’s ridiculous and a savage lifestyle. Should they now go on the maury show?This is just cultural male chauvinism! If they lived in real polyandry, who happens to be biological father wouldn’t matter. If they still want to know, it’s a 2 minutes test. No biggie. Savage is when religion allows men to marry children, rape their wives, marry more wives without the permission or even knowledge of their prior wives, when men are allowed by religion to beat their wives. That is savage. A simple voluntary blood test is not. Can’t you see how absurd your bias is here??My dear sister, I really enjoyed this conversation with you. As stated, recognizing the secular nature of the government- I support polyandry. However, from an Islamic perspective, it makes no sense.

Take care and have a great day. I apologize if you felt I insulted you in any way.

Thank you very much for posting. It is a very interesting debate. I am glad you came.

I have never before seen anything as disgusting as this man saying that it could be in democracy we must allow women polygamy too even it is haram. He is not muslim! To be like the kaffr is a sin and to say it could be allowed is being like a kaffr. Polygamy is halal to men only there is no doubt is haram to women and no muslim woman would want! Hakeem Muhammad is shameful to islam by such thought. May Allah forgive him.

Salam,
I agree our Lord has forbid the act of women marrying mulitplt men,but the act is not disgusting because it is the act men do to women.Funny how men promote men having mutilpy wives,but can not handle the concept of his wife with other men. As a muslim woman,who has never been with anyone else than my husband , I would expect the some from him.I am not his toy ,or his prize rather am his partner in life and hopefully company for Jannah.Muslim men need to stop acting like their wives have only eyes for them,even ,Allah has ordered women to lower their gaze cause we look too my friend.Just thank God, He has not made polygamy permissible for women,cause men would know whats up.